Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

481–490 of 776 posts

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am familiar with those lawsuits. Alex Jones did not promote harassment. He did not even factually conclude that Sandy Hook was a hoax, just floated the possibility. He reported on anomalies, on the conspiracy, on using Sandy Hook as a pretext to take away guns, on Adam Lanza probably using big pharma drugs. He stated that he understands why people would see Sandy Hook as a hoax, because history shows other events h…

> He did not even factually conclude that Sandy Hook was a hoax, just floated the possibility. So on April 16, 2013 on his YouTube channel when he said “Sandy Hook was staged, and the evidence is overwhelming” he was just “floating the possibility?” That’s an awfully definitive statement from someone who’s supposedly speaking of a hypothetical. Edit: I also see you managed to sneak an edit into your first comment aft…

In the deposition he clarifies this out-of-context (it is not the full sentence and not even a correct quote) statement and puts it into context. At that time, he did not think the whole thing was staged, but that the way the media handled it, used it against gun owners, was synthetic. He says some reports about the incidents were covered up. He says he thinks there was a cover-up of some of the negligence in the town and of the school. He did think there was some cover-up, but it was not that the whole thing was staged. Specific areas were faked, not in a totality. He believes school shootings happen, and now believes that Sandy Hook happened.

Even if, it is a far cry from promoting harassment of victims.

Edit: I did that edit not in response to you (I had not read your response yet, just like I made this post without reading your edit), but because people cite news stories, instead of Alex Jones. I am sure you can find news stories stating that Alex Jones instigated harassment of victims, as it was one of the big justifications for deplatforming, but I never saw Alex Jones say anything to that effect. The direct quotes are just not there... Even for your "quote" that is attributed to Alex Jones, it is not a correct quote, nor is it the full sentence, it seems to be Chinese whispered from a reddit thread. I myself got tricked by taking news stories about Alex Jones as factual, but when I saw the actual direct quote/news clip, I saw how what was presented as fact, was the journalists' biased interpretation. I read a news article stating Alex Jones was transphobic and promoting transphobia, but then I saw he was talking about this: https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/1179838/2147... and saying it looked demonic to him, and that he did not want this normalized. It was very much in the style of: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forget-mr-rogers-drag-que...

About moving the goal post: The lawsuits are about making misleading statements, not about instigating harassment of the victims. Alex Jones did not instigate or promote harassing the victims of Sandy Hook. Some of his deluded followers took that upon themselves. You can find direct quotes where he says they should not do that and that it is wrong.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#482
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people do realise it, and feel like it's a worthwhile risk. The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now. And also, I may end up censored anyway for other reasons. Tolerating Milo et al. isn't really a bulwark protecting me.

> The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now. What damage? Be specific. I think censoring people should require a considerable specificity as to their "crimes" before they're exiled.

Others have gotten into this with you about the specific damage, and my point was less "yay, censor them!" than the argument that not deplatforming them somehow protects me. It doesn't, even hypothetically.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#483
post #342
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card. So, like, the 'Saturday Night Live Card'?

Do you not find a difference between a show that bills itself as comedy and satire and a site that bills itself as news and info?

The former can be just as disingenuous as the latter. Jon Stewart wielded immense political influence amongst the under-30 crowd, but whenever seriously challenged, hid behind the defense of comedy.

Yiannopoulos consistently billed himself as a provocateur, little different from a Coulter or Maher.

People have been blending news, entertainment, and polemic together for centuries and it's not going to stop because some people want to codify rules of Serious Journalism and impose them universally across the Internet.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#484
post #248

Once again, I find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a website that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.

Turn on "show dead" in your profile. They aren't deleted; they're hidden.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#485
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone comes to your house. Your private property. They proceed to call your daughter a whore. Do you and your daughter kick them out? Or Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room? It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it. But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or g…

Yea it would mean you're not open to discourse about that topic. Your totally within your rights to not want to discuss your daughter being a whore or not, but yes then you're not open in regards to that subject. And there is plenty a chance of that person being correct. Furthermore, there is a very significant different between Facebook (which acts like a town square) vs your private dwelling.

> And there is plenty a chance of that person being correct.

That reads like you said that there's a fairly high chance that his daughter is a whore. You should either retract or clarify, depending on whether you meant that or not.

Or did I completely misread this?

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

was thinking more along the lines of this study, which shows that "right-wing anti-refugee sentiment on Facebook predicts violent crimes against refugees in municipalities with higher social media usage." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972

that study is a case study in selection bias by someone with a political agenda. You can't just look at actions by one somewhat arbitrary group against another, and not look at the actions of anyone else, unless you are expressly trying to be misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime_in_Germa... You can see that the other "group" here, whos actions are deliberately being ignored by the author an…

For anyone reading, I’m not responding to this as it doesn’t address anything I, the study, or the original article said.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#488
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?

Yes? Facebook should ban racism against Turkish people? I'm not sure I see how that's an interesting or difficult call to make.

I don’t know if I agree with that. The Turkish ethnostate tried to wipe Armenians off the map. Who is Facebook to tell Armenians how they can express their response to that?

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#489
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And banning Milo from Facebook is going to somehow improve that situation is it? Milo the loud mouthed cretin’s tame insults are responsible for the incidence of violence against trans women?

The bar Facebook has set is not that they will improve the situation of all trans women everywhere. The bar set is that Facebook will removing people known for dangerous speech. The question is "has Milo committed dangerous speech?". I answered "yes, I believe so, I recall incidents that can be interpreted as such". Also, I did see what you wrote before you edited it out. That was an unfortunate, accusatory comment i…

You recall? Post the proof. I think if it were true it would definitely be all over for him.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jewish ethnically. You personally haven't seen his husband, and you personally haven't seen a public record of his marriage. OK, so he's a white supremacist who pretends to be Jewish and pretends to have a black husband. Totally makes sense. Seriously, there is no evidence that he has white supremacist beliefs. He hates political correctness and radical leftist ideas. The SJW's/leftists are offended by his criticism…

>You personally haven't seen his husband, and you personally haven't seen a public record of his marriage. Find one credible source of his husband existing. I'm sure they must have friends and family saying how happy they are together, right? But... no. Somehow journalists haven't managed to turn up anything. Or, maybe he's really the kept boy of one of Milo's sugar daddies. Who maybe died of a drug overdose. >He hat…

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/894492...

AFAIK, his partner's name is John Lewis.

That being said, marriage licenses are private for obvious reasons and apply to that partnership as outlined in https://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/about-civil-unions/

Relevant:

> The Department of Health can provide certified copies of legal records to verify civil union status in Hawaii to those who are entitled to receive copies pursuant to state law

I got a chuckle from reading that the Domestic Union in Hawaii was signed by Governor Abercrombie, admittedly.

Post reply on HN